Jump to content


Photo

How large does your relector have to be to....

  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 mantrain

mantrain

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 960
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2011
  • Loc: San Diego

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:12 PM

Assuming excellent conditions, etc how large of a reflector is required to be able to view every object in the NGC catalog?

#2 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10339
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:45 PM

Tackling some that THAT big - Id want 12" and wouldn't dip below 10". Something like 6.5v sky's or better.

Pete
Edit: I was too optimistic on this mentioning the 10" minimum . Sorry for a any mislead. A 12" would be a better choice. And even then its got its work cut out.

#3 mantrain

mantrain

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 960
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2011
  • Loc: San Diego

Posted 22 April 2014 - 11:53 PM

So a 10" could potentially view every object in the NGC?
(assuming that would travel to northern and southern hemispheres.

#4 Bill Weir

Bill Weir

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2534
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Metchosin (Victoria), Canada

Posted 23 April 2014 - 12:40 AM

It would be tough and totally depend on your skill level. Also expect it to take a good deal of time. Many you would probably find difficult with your 16". Ths is from personal experience as I work my way through the Herschel 2500, mostly so far with my 12.5" and now my 20". I started in 2009 and due to sky/weather conditions as well as side observing desires I'm only now closing in on 1900. It also has taken a good deal of planning as no DSS are involved.

Bill

#5 svdwal

svdwal

    Vendor (mBrain Software)

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 159
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2013
  • Loc: Leiden, The Netherlands

Posted 23 April 2014 - 06:03 AM

O'Meara states in his "Herschel 400 observing guide" that a modern 10" with excellent coatings under a properly dark sky should be equivalent to Herschels own 18.7 inch speculum mirror. Herschel did not find all the objects in the NGC, so a 10" is probably too small.

#6 MitchAlsup

MitchAlsup

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1524
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2009

Posted 23 April 2014 - 08:46 AM

6" a tracking drive and a camera.
12"-14" visually under pristine skies.

#7 JMW

JMW

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1408
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2007
  • Loc: Nevada

Posted 23 April 2014 - 10:49 AM

I don't know how long it would take to systematically attempt to see the whole NGC catalog. I would assume my 14.5 inch mirror under dark skies would be enough. Under light polluted conditions I imaging some low contrast objects would be very difficult. Some objects like the California nebula (NGC 1499) I have only successfully detected when imaging. I have tried using a Hydrogen Beta filter without success under very dark skies. It a pretty easy target for my C11 EdgeHD in Hyperstar mode.

#8 mantrain

mantrain

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 960
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2011
  • Loc: San Diego

Posted 23 April 2014 - 11:13 AM

Thanks everyone,

Now please allow me to rephrase the question, I was unclear:

What size reflector would be needed for nearly all the NGC objects to be view-able under good skies?Not assuming one wants to get through the entire catalog, just know the expectation that any particular object is view-able.

And what about the IC ?????

#9 JMW

JMW

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1408
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2007
  • Loc: Nevada

Posted 23 April 2014 - 11:47 AM

I just downloaded an spreadsheet of the NGC catalog. There are a small number of objects with a visual magnitude of 16 or greater. My 14.5 mirror should be able to go to about 16.4 magnitude under perfect conditions. The visual magnitude can be misleading for objet that are very spread out. Dark skies are very important to help with contract. Seeing can also be a factor.

A 12 inch scope can be purchased for under $800 and would give you the potential to see objects with a magnitude of about 16. Under dark skies with perfect conditions you would have the potential to detect the vast majority of objects in the NGC catalog. Being sure that you actually recognize the object in the field is another mater that relates to the observers experience and access to could catalogs that show what you should expect to see in the eyepiece.

#10 David Knisely

David Knisely

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15541
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004
  • Loc: southeastern Nebraska

Posted 23 April 2014 - 03:37 PM

I don't know how long it would take to systematically attempt to see the whole NGC catalog. I would assume my 14.5 inch mirror under dark skies would be enough. Under light polluted conditions I imaging some low contrast objects would be very difficult. Some objects like the California nebula (NGC 1499) I have only successfully detected when imaging. I have tried using a Hydrogen Beta filter without success under very dark skies. It a pretty easy target for my C11 EdgeHD in Hyperstar mode.


I would suggest another try at it. I have seen the California nebula from my dark sky site with my unaided eye by just holding the H-Beta filter up to my eye and shielding it from any external lighting. In my 100mm f/6 refractor at 15x (4.39 degree true field of view) using the Lumicon H-Beta filter, it is fairly easy to see, although it isn't terribly bright. It won't fit in the maximum field of my 9.25 inch SCT, but with the H-Beta filter, I can still pan around and see a couple of its very broad diffuse filaments. Clear skies to you.

#11 mantrain

mantrain

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 960
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2011
  • Loc: San Diego

Posted 23 April 2014 - 07:01 PM

Ok, so it sounds like a 10" is good enough to see most any NGC object (assuming reasonable conditions).

What about the IC ???

#12 David Knisely

David Knisely

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15541
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004
  • Loc: southeastern Nebraska

Posted 23 April 2014 - 07:15 PM

Ok, so it sounds like a 10" is good enough to see most any NGC object (assuming reasonable conditions).

What about the IC ???


The Index Catalog is all over the place in terms of visibility of the objects in that catalog. Some like IC 4665 are ridiculously easy to see, but other IC objects can push the visual capabilities of even very large (18 to 30 inch) amateur instruments. There are also quite a number of the IC entries that are either unknown or do not exist (faint stars, double stars, or just plain errors). You just have to go and see what you can see. Clear skies to you.

#13 Achernar

Achernar

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9075
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Mobile, Alabama, USA

Posted 23 April 2014 - 08:02 PM

The original NGC catalog was compiled with a 10-inch telescope. I would say you'd want at least a 15 or 16-inch telescope to see every NGC object, and at that some are going to be very faint. I have observed some 1,100 deep sky objects so far, the faintest being about 15th magnitude with my telescopes.

Taras

#14 Eddgie

Eddgie

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12651
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 23 April 2014 - 08:09 PM

I have been hacking away at the NGC catalog for a decade using a C11, C14, and 12" dob.

I have logged a lot of "Not seen" entries.

There are a hugh amount of very dim NGC objects.

If you want to know what you have a chance of seeing, may I recommend the Night Sky Observer's Guide?

This is a two volume book that includes thousands of targets, and it has a "Star" rating along with descriptions on how these objects appear in many different size telescopes.

I would just annotate in my copy when I tried to observe something.

But there are a lot of magnitude 13 and 14 galaxies that I think would be impossible to see in anything less than a pretty large scope (15" to 20") used under very dark and highly transparent skies.

In 10 years, I think I have listed more as "Not seen" than as "Observed."

I only observe from my back yard though, so don't let that stop you.

I recommend the two volume book though. It is an amazing work and a great observation planning tool.

Good luck...

#15 David Knisely

David Knisely

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15541
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004
  • Loc: southeastern Nebraska

Posted 24 April 2014 - 12:20 AM

Achernar wrote:

The original NGC catalog was compiled with a 10-inch telescope.


Well, not quite. While a majority of the NGC objects can be seen in a 10 inch under very dark sky conditions, that is not the aperture that was used to make the observations for that catalog. The NGC was compiled by John Dreyer in 1888 from observations of William and John Herschel, as well as from a few other sources. The observations were done with apertures from two inches to 72 inches. Indeed William Herschel used apertures of 6.2 inches, 12 inches, 18.7 inches, and 49.5 inches for his surveys that produced a large number of the observations that went into the NGC. His speculum mirrors don't have the efficiency that ours do now, so his 18.7 inch was probably close to the performance of a modern 10 inch now. However, the survey was done with some pretty sizable apertures. Clear skies to you.

#16 David Knisely

David Knisely

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15541
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004
  • Loc: southeastern Nebraska

Posted 24 April 2014 - 12:42 AM

Eddgie wrote:

But there are a lot of magnitude 13 and 14 galaxies that I think would be impossible to see in anything less than a pretty large scope (15" to 20") used under very dark and highly transparent skies.


Galaxies fainter than 13th or 14th magnitude might be difficult to see in apertures less than 15 inches, but definitely not impossible. Indeed, at least a few of the galaxies in Stephan's Quintet are visible in an 8 inch (and some have seen them in smaller instruments) even though the brightest individual galaxy in the group is close to 13th magnitude. I have managed to get about three of the very faint galaxies in the much more difficult grouping known as Seyfert's Sextet (NGC 6027 a, b, c, d, e) in my 9.25 inch SCT even though the brightest is magnitude 14.7. With the Perseus Galaxy Cluster (Abell 426), I can probably see at least 10 to 15 of its component galaxies, and many of these are fainter than 13th magnitude. While the magnitudes of faint galaxies are often not extremely accurate, with some patience and study (especially at moderate to high power), a 10 inch under dark sky conditions may be able to reveal a number of galaxies down to around 15th magnitude or so. Clear skies to you.

#17 mantrain

mantrain

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 960
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2011
  • Loc: San Diego

Posted 24 April 2014 - 12:56 AM

I don't know how long it would take to systematically attempt to see the whole NGC catalog. I would assume my 14.5 inch mirror under dark skies would be enough. Under light polluted conditions I imaging some low contrast objects would be very difficult. Some objects like the California nebula (NGC 1499) I have only successfully detected when imaging. I have tried using a Hydrogen Beta filter without success under very dark skies. It a pretty easy target for my C11 EdgeHD in Hyperstar mode.


I would suggest another try at it. I have seen the California nebula from my dark sky site with my unaided eye by just holding the H-Beta filter up to my eye and shielding it from any external lighting. In my 100mm f/6 refractor at 15x (4.39 degree true field of view) using the Lumicon H-Beta filter, it is fairly easy to see, although it isn't terribly bright. It won't fit in the maximum field of my 9.25 inch SCT, but with the H-Beta filter, I can still pan around and see a couple of its very broad diffuse filaments. Clear skies to you.



Well if the NGC catalog was indexed using 72" and 49.5" reflectors, that changes everything --even if the efficiency was 50% o today. I had no idea they were using a 72" scope for some of those objects originally.

#18 Mark Harry

Mark Harry

    Vendor

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 6162
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Northeast USA

Posted 24 April 2014 - 06:41 AM

Achernar wrote:

The original NGC catalog was compiled with a 10-inch telescope.


Well, not quite. While a majority of the NGC objects can be seen in a 10 inch under very dark sky conditions, that is not the aperture that was used to make the observations for that catalog. The NGC was compiled by John Dreyer in 1888 from observations of William and John Herschel, as well as from a few other sources. The observations were done with apertures from two inches to 72 inches. Indeed William Herschel used apertures of 6.2 inches, 12 inches, 18.7 inches, and 49.5 inches for his surveys that produced a large number of the observations that went into the NGC. His speculum mirrors don't have the efficiency that ours do now, so his 18.7 inch was probably close to the performance of a modern 10 inch now. However, the survey was done with some pretty sizable apertures. Clear skies to you.

********
And the skies were a lot darker from lack of all pollution!
M.

#19 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 43858
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 24 April 2014 - 07:21 AM

And the skies were a lot darker from lack of all pollution!
M.



There are places in the US that are far enough from civilization that the skies are not affected by light pollution. And back then, smoke from wood and coal fires was a big problem..

Jon

#20 aatt

aatt

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 476
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2012
  • Loc: CT

Posted 24 April 2014 - 07:40 AM

I know my 6" was not cutting it from my Orange zone which is why I went up to a 15". That being said transparency and light pollution are my limiting factors now.I just had a great night last week with the NGC's in Leo's hindquarters because transparency was good. On other "muddier" nights some of them are not detectable.

#21 George N

George N

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2761
  • Joined: 19 May 2006
  • Loc: Binghamton & Indian Lake NY

Posted 24 April 2014 - 11:35 AM

I don't know how long it would take to systematically attempt to see the whole NGC catalog. I would assume my 14.5 inch mirror under dark skies would be enough. Under light polluted conditions I imaging some low contrast objects would be very difficult. Some objects like the California nebula (NGC 1499) I have only successfully detected when imaging. I have tried using a Hydrogen Beta filter without success under very dark skies. It a pretty easy target for my C11 EdgeHD in Hyperstar mode.


I would suggest another try at it. I have seen the California nebula from my dark sky site with my unaided eye by just holding the H-Beta filter up to my eye and shielding it from any external lighting. In my 100mm f/6 refractor at 15x (4.39 degree true field of view) using the Lumicon H-Beta filter, it is fairly easy to see, although it isn't terribly bright. It won't fit in the maximum field of my 9.25 inch SCT, but with the H-Beta filter, I can still pan around and see a couple of its very broad diffuse filaments. Clear skies to you.



Well if the NGC catalog was indexed using 72" and 49.5" reflectors, that changes everything --even if the efficiency was 50% o today. I had no idea they were using a 72" scope for some of those objects originally.


A goodly number of the fainter galaxies in the NGC were discovered with 12 to 15 inch refractors - typical of the better observatories of the latter 19th Century. Several observers were in 'competition' and they believed that dimmer 'galaxies' clustered around brighter ones. That is why there tends to be the most errors in the NGC around bright galaxies. (Example: several of the faint fuzzies around NGC 7331 are actually double stars, or erroneous re-observations of the same object, or simply don't exist.) Also, with the NGC, a goodly number of the open clusters don't exist either.

I would bet that nearly all of the actually existing NGC objects could be seen in an 18-inch, but a 14 might be able to do it, as long as it is used under dark skies.

Of course, when we are talking visual observing, the human eyeball is as important as the scope. One thing is almost certainly true: If you can see the entire NGC in a 14-inch at age 30, you will probably need an 18 or 20 by age 65. An avid observer friend of mine who is an MD (owns a 22" Dob, several AP refractors, etc) told me: it's not matter of 'if', it's just a matter of 'when' your eye lenses start to cloud up. His suggestion: go outside the USA to get eye lens implants that are not coated with UV filters (required in the US), but then you'll need to wear UV filtered glasses whenever going outside to prevent damage to your retina.

#22 sgottlieb

sgottlieb

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 960
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2007
  • Loc: SF Bay area

Posted 24 April 2014 - 09:22 PM

A goodly number of the fainter galaxies in the NGC were discovered with 12 to 15 inch refractors - typical of the better observatories of the latter 19th Century. Several observers were in 'competition' and they believed that dimmer 'galaxies' clustered around brighter ones. That is why there tends to be the most errors in the NGC around bright galaxies. (Example: several of the faint fuzzies around NGC 7331 are actually double stars, or erroneous re-observations of the same object, or simply don't exist.) Also, with the NGC, a goodly number of the open clusters don't exist either.

I would bet that nearly all of the actually existing NGC objects could be seen in an 18-inch, but a 14 might be able to do it, as long as it is used under dark skies.

Of course, when we are talking visual observing, the human eyeball is as important as the scope. One thing is almost certainly true: If you can see the entire NGC in a 14-inch at age 30, you will probably need an 18 or 20 by age 65...


A number of excellent points, George. There's really no definitive answer on the minimum aperture required to view the entire NGC as there are so many variables, but ....

As far as observing all the existing NGC objects with an 18-inch, you would win that bet as I finished up the entire NGC last month! Well, at least as far south as -45° dec, with almost 300 left in the far southern hemisphere.

I started this project off in 1978 with a 6", switched to an 8" a couple of years later and then a 13" in 1982. Although several thousand NGC's were observed with this scope, nearly all the rest were done with an 18". So, observing the NGC extended over 36 years (with lots of interruptions for the IC's, Arps, Hicksons, Palomars, Abell clusters, Vorontsov-Velyaminov interacting galaxies, etc.) All observations were made at fairly dark rural sites or dark, high elevation California sites.

There are quite a number of large-aperture discoveries in the (northern) NGC. Probably many more than folks realize. Here's the breakdown (rounded to nearest 10)

William Herschel: 2360 with an 18-inch (speculum) reflector (England)
John Herschel: 650 with an 18-inch reflector (England and Cape of Good Hope)
Albert Marth: 650 with a 48-inch reflector from Malta
Lewis Swift: 460 with a 16-inch refractor (Warner Observatory in N.Y.)
Édouard Stephan: 410 with a 31-inch (silvered glass) reflector at Marseille
Leavenworth/Muller/Stone: 380 with a 26-inch refractor in Virginia
Lord Rosse (and assistants): 250 with a 72-inch from Birr Castle, Ireland.

With this impressive array of glass and speculum metal, quite a few toughies are found in the NGC for an 18-inch or smaller scope. If you want to start from the beginning, take NGC 4 for example. It was discovered by Albert Marth with the 48-inch built by William Lassell (equatorial fork driven by a hand crank). This faint galaxy has a magnitude of just V = 15.9 and B = 16.8. It's visible in an 18-inch from a dark site, but its certainly not easy. Of course, having a detailed (computerized) finder chart helps immensely -- it's much easier to detect a faint galaxy when you know exactly where to look, then to discover it in the first place like Marth!

#23 BigC

BigC

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3204
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2010
  • Loc: SE Indiana

Posted 24 April 2014 - 10:26 PM

So a 10" could potentially view every object in the NGC?
(assuming that would travel to northern and southern hemispheres.

If that were my goal,then I'd figure out how to get a 16" if finances are a major factor;and if lots of money was available then I'd get one the largest aperture fast scope (and the newest coma correctors and eyepieces)with a proven goto (push-to) system.Going from a 4.5 to a 10 to a 12 inch reflector revealed more stars every step but galaxies and diffuse objects still need the dark sky.If you just want to see as much as possible on a budget ,one of the 12" Dobs is the ticket!

#24 christheman200

christheman200

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 481
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2013
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 25 April 2014 - 12:04 AM

For most objects in the NGC list in a 12", you should be able to spot them if they are in the field of view. From personal experience, if you can't find it, it's because you're looking at the wrong place.

#25 David Knisely

David Knisely

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15541
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004
  • Loc: southeastern Nebraska

Posted 25 April 2014 - 12:54 AM

For most objects in the NGC list in a 12", you should be able to spot them if they are in the field of view. From personal experience, if you can't find it, it's because you're looking at the wrong place.


Or that the object actually does not exist (and there are a number of them, like the "glare in the eyepiece" nebula NGC 1990 or the so-called "open cluster" NGC 2253, both of which made the Herschel II listing). For a few questionable entries, the NGC/IC project has a page for 85 of the "not found" NGC objects:

http://www.ngcicproj...projobslist.htm

Clear skies to you.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics